GOPAL KRISHNA POTNAY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal in a suit for a declaration that the order of the plaintiff's removal from service passed by the Chief Administrative Officer of the East Punjab Railway, Delhi, on the 30th June 1949 and communicated to him on the 4th July 1949 was wrong, illegal, 'ultra vires; and void in law and that he was still an employee of the Railway and entitled to work as such. The trial Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. On appeal, the East Punjab High Court reversed the decision and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The present appeal has been filed in this Court with a certificate granted by the East Punjab High Court under Article 133 of the Constitution.

(2.) The plaintiff joined the Railway service in 1918. In March 1945 he was selected as Railway Sectional Officer of the Delhi Special Police Establishment. In June 1948 the Inspector-General of Special Police Establishment decided to revert the plaintiff to the East Punjab Railway service. The plaintiff accordingly assumed charge in the office of the Divisional Superintendent, East Punjab Railway, at Ferozepore Cantonment on the 30th June 1948 but was immediately thereafter put under suspension and remained under suspension till the 19th August 1948. On the 20th August1948 the plaintiff was reinstated, the period of suspension being treated as leave. On the 30th June 1949 the chief Administrative officer, East Punjab, Railway, in exercise of his special powers made an order (Ex. D/8) removing the plaintiff from service in terms of his agreement. That order was communicated to the plaintiff by a letter (Ex. D/14) dated the 1st July 1949, reading as follows:

(3.) The trial Court found that the defendant had not proved that the plaintiff had executed any service agreement and that being so there was no question of his discharge from service on a month's notice and without formulating a charge-sheet and giving him an opportunity to answer the same. Accordingly a decree was passed in terms of the prayer. On appeal by the defendant, the High Court came to the conclusion that the defendant had amply proved the service agreement and reversing the decree of the trial Court, dismissed the suit.